Why is the US ok with having an inept police force?

[Gaidin]

Romania is also very rural, we've just passed the 50% urban population for the first time in history, and communes with 1-3 cops per village are the norm here not an extreme case (Communes vary from ~2000 to 49999 people) and yet they still answer to the county commissioner's office, when that one cop retires or gets promoted his replacement will be a graduate of the police academy with a completed internship in another part of the country so you have a guarantee of a minimal professionalism.

You don't need FBI seminars, all can be done at a state level, for less cost than the current system/. If the system works for the most disorganized country in Europe why would it not work, even partially, in the most organized country in the Americas.

I presume you mean federal level? A key term here.

Just enforcing whatever level of law for the department he's assigned to? Thus...requiring federal law? Probably backed at this stage by at least federal law, SCOTUS ruling, if not Constitutional amendment if states are found not willing to succumb to such a system?

Otherwise you just have fifty different systems. Which leaves us mostly where we are right now just only slightly more organized. Just with people whining about New York State instead of NYPD or California instead of LAPD.

[Sir Adrian]

No, I mean state level but it can also be done on a federal level. The state/federal government ca organize a police school where all future policemen are trained following a unified curricula and once they graduate they get distributed across the state on a as needed basis. Make thew admittance exam the harshest in the state with a required admittance curricula covering grammar, history, psychology and civic culture as well as exemplary physical fitness. If you have too many graduates in one year keep lower scoring ones in reserve or give them supplementary training until a position opens or you reduce the number of admitted candates.
The system is self-regulating and ensures that your cops a. are psychologically fit
b. have weapons discipline
c. know how to react to the varying levels of threat so that you don't get civilian deaths every time a douchebag walks around with his hands in his pockets.


I don't see why any governor with more IQ than a burrito would say no to a cheaper more efficient and professional police force. I mean that measure alone would win you the next two elections. And if they don't want it make it optional. Once the everybody sees the results in the state which did opt in the people will demand the change to be enacted.

So you would get the Supreme Court involved, big deal. Between weed legalization and that stupid sticker case the supreme court gets involved in everything else.

[Gaidin]

No, I mean state level but it can also be done on a federal level. The state/federal government ca organize a police school where all future policemen are trained following a unified curricula and once they graduate they get distributed across the state on a as needed basis. Make thew admittance exam the harshest in the state with a required admittance curricula covering grammar, history, psychology and civic culture as well as exemplary physical fitness. If you have too many graduates in one year keep lower scoring ones in reserve or give them supplementary training until a position opens or you reduce the number of admitted candates.
The system is self-regulating and ensures that your cops a. are psychologically fit
b. have weapons discipline
c. know how to react to the varying levels of threat so that you don't get civilian deaths every time a douchebag walks around with his hands in his pockets.


I don't see why any governor with more IQ than a burrito would say no to a cheaper more efficient and professional police force. I mean that measure alone would win you the next two elections. And if they don't want it make it optional. Once the everybody sees the results in the state which did opt in the people will demand the change to be enacted.

So you would get the Supreme Court involved, big deal. Between weed legalization and that stupid sticker case the supreme court gets involved in everything else.

So you want fifty different random state laws somehow doing the same thing?

That's even more magical. Uhhh. Where's your pixie dust you're using to make this happen? Remember, think happy thoughts!

Also, learn how our government works and learn how it's different from yours before you post things like this.

[Derpy Hooves]

A Fed school for police? Good luck with that. We already hate the Fed getting involved in local education

[Sir Adrian]

Hold up for a sec, you don't have national curricula?

So you want fifty different random state laws somehow doing the same thing?

That's even more magical. Uhhh. Where's your pixie dust you're using to make this happen? Remember, think happy thoughts!

Also, learn how our government works and learn how it's different from yours before you post things like this.

The word decentralization, look it up. You can have one set of regulations applied by each state individually. It's not all complete control or utter chaos.

[Derpy Hooves]

No we don't. That's a state right

[Gaidin]

You can have one set of regulations applied by each state individually. It's not all complete control or utter chaos.

We literally can't for how to tell state to implement their law and how to tell cities to implement their ordinances.

[Sir Adrian]

What do you mean how to tell a state to implement them? You send the governors a notice of their obligations, just like everybody else does. Don't tell me the government can't fire governors and mayors for dereliction of duty?

No we don't. That's a state right

So basically that two people graduating from the same major in different states will have completely different skill sets even though the job market requirements are uniform leading to one of them being hireable and the other being perpetually unemployed and you accept that?

[Gaidin]

Don't tell me the government can't fire governors and mayors for dereliction of duty?

No. It can't just "fire" them. It can in certain cases of certain cases sort of vote them out. Or state congress can impeach them. But damn, you give state governments too much power and flexibility. This ain't corporate government sir. They're voted in for X years. Period. Full stop.

[Derpy Hooves]

What do you mean how to tell a state to implement them? You send the governors a notice of their obligations, just like everybody else does. Don't tell me the government can't fire governors and mayors for dereliction of duty?



So basically that two people graduating from the same major in different states will have completely different skill sets even though the job market requirements are uniform leading to one of them being hireable and the other being perpetually unemployed and you accept that?

Completely different skill sets? Man you make it sound like in one state a class identified as math is being called history in another state.
In other words, you're 100% wrong. Jobs don't differentiate which state you got your education from (typically). They might prefer people from certain colleges.
Man you really don't understand the US do you?

[ABH2]

I haven't read all seven pages of this thread, but I'm going to guess that unions haven't been mentioned even once.

EDIT: Did a quick search through the thread. Unions were mentioned once in passing pages ago. But if you want to start with the issue of American policing, that is a good place to go. This is an area where politicians work in a bipartisan manner to screw you, as well. Democrats are beholden to public sector unions, and conservatives are the tough on crime party. There are non-unionized police forces, but they tend to be in red states and benefit from the slavish commitment of Republicans. Even when a guy like Walker successfully goes after public unions, he makes special exemptions for the cops and firefighters.

It isn't all unions, but they are a huge part of it.